I think we are generally too harsh with people who violate the TOS. This probably makes some who would otherwise be level-headed push back even harder. Many people are not used to reading, much less following, a site's TOS. HA is to be commended for its adherance to to its TOS, but its enforcement could use tweaking.

I would like to propose the following:

1. When someone violates a TOS a friendly note is posted in the thread (and sent as a private message) that:
a. Notifies them that they violated the TOS
b. Summarizes the TOS they violated
c. Provides a link the the TOS
d. Informs them the thread is locked

(Flagrant, repeat violators would be banned)

2. Create a new forum to debate each of the TOSs.

3. Make a new TOS that the TOSs can only be debated in the TOS Forum.

I think this approach will reduce the TOS flame wars that ensue every few days, improving the SNR on some threads

I hope this post is taken in the spirit of trying to improve the quality of an already high-quality forum.

1. That is already happening, except for the warning system being private.

2. This subforum is perfectly suited for general discussion about the terms of service. For example, see the recent thread about TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs. However, individual complaints should be directed to a staff member in private. Topics like "I have been warned: discuss" would be a bad idea.

About flame wars: since we cannot read all posts in quickly progressing threads in realtime, we rely on members to problematic posts before things get out of hand.

Amen

Woody

1.) Discussion of TOS violations do not belong in threads where they occur. Such a discussion is irrelevant and uninteresting to other members, and derail the thread. Such matters are dealt with between the offender and the moderation, privately.

2.) The TOS is not up for debate, except amongst the moderators/admins.

3.) TOS discussions belong in this subforum, Site Related Discussion. See also 2.)

I suggest that you raise the maximum number of warnings from 3 to 4,
considering how easily newcomers can burn them.

How long does it take to cancel a warning ?
It it automated, or the moderators have to take actions ?
Also what about temporary bans (limited number of month)
instead of a definitive ones ?

Is HA so hard up for members they should put up with, and waste resources nurturing jerks back to health?

I mean - I have a big rash mouth and never had a "Warn" level over 0%.

I like things the way they are. Ifthis forum changed to look like other places, it would be way less useful to me.

The are plenty of open/loose/'friendly' places. I rarely frequent them.

This place has been a valuable resource over the years. Leave it alone.

The terms of service here are either common-sense or technically-motivated. There are a lot of terms-of-service violations that get away without even a Warning, just a verbal mention. On the other hand, there are times when terms-of-service violations must be dealt with firmly.

As far as I am concerned, I wouldn't change a thing. Behave or leave.

A 100% warning level does not equal a ban. Warning levels are not publicly visible either.


It is semi-automated, but is usually considered on a case-by-case basis.


We already do this. There are steps between warnings and bans that are frequently employed. Let me show you the warning panel.

@JensRex
Thanks for clearing things up.

I've said this many times now, but the issue discussed here again revolves around the fact that some members may see a warning as a threat of a ban, rather than what it is: a warning.

I don't mean to suggest that members should not care about a warning they have been issued, but rather that they take it for what it is. Re-read the TOS, work out why you have received the warning (which may involve a PM to the mods, although hopefully should not), and choose not to repeat your mistake.

If you choose to ignore it and continue blindly, or become abusive, then you frankly deserve everything that you get.

I for one am against any argument that suggests it is the mod team's responsibilty to ensure members are familiar with the TOS; it is solely a member's own responsibility.

I think Snash point was not so much about the moderator <-> user interaction, but the user <-> user interaction, when a TOS violation (or what seems so) appears.


Users (me included) tend to react to those comments in a way that doesn't facilitate the discussion (if it has to be one). Like sometimes having three consecutive posts saying almost the same.

What is to be talked about here is a better way to globally react to it. A protocol, if you want. How should users specifically deal with it.

A suggestion (mostly what Snash has said) could be that the first user who see that, write a post saying "Possible TOS violation" (point to the TOS), use the report button to get the attention of a moderator, then the usual moderator <-> user talk takes on (maybe temporarily closing the thread) and when the subject is cleared, allow the talk to continue.

So the questions now are:
a) Is this new regulation needed.
b) Is this method adequate

As a frequent poster and long-time user, I can say from personal experience that I think the Warning-button is sometimes being hit a little too aggressively. I think the TOS is fine in general, but sometimes a warning is a little too harsh imho, whereas some mods forget that there's actually also a PM-button... This is called dialogue - There's no such thing when a user has been warned, but I think that dialogue is often more powerful than warnings (especially with old hangouts).

Another thing that seems missing to me is dialogue between mods/admins. I got a warning once for replying to a spam-post - Actually it was a very nice post for some software I thought maybe could be useful, but I was curious as it looked somewhat commercial and wanted to see if he intended to respond to the thread (which would not be a TOS-violation then) - So I posted asking for the price of the software. A mod contacted me that he had deleted the thread - Very nice move. A few hours later i got warned... by ANOTHER mod!

Well, what's so harsh about it? The warnings are just notes from the moderators to users and also for other moderators. They could as well be called simply Notes or whatever, that might better describe what this forum software's feature is used for here on HA. Already said many times, solely 100% full warning level doesn't mean anything, any bans are decided much more thoroughly.

As a warning doesn't impact user's ability to participate in further discussion in any way, I don't see why its usage should be restricted. If somebody doesn't understand why she or he got warned, feel free to ask, we sure are open for dialogue.

I don't want to open old wounds and I wasn't even involved in this in any way, but that topic was a typical spam one, with big promotional images and lots of links to increase page rank. Moreover your reply was a brief "You forgot to mention pricetag.". It seems at least like a dumb move to reply in such a way, because that sentence doesn't really sound like an honest curious question to me. But anyway, if that should ever have any impact on more serious administrative action taken upon you, that post would be reviewed again, so if it were only a moderator's mistake, it wouldn't be naturally taken into account.

Each moderator does its job here at different time, from different place, etc. Consulting each action beforehand with others is just not really feasible. As stated in the explanatory topic already linked here earlier, if you are not satisfied with your warnings, contact an admin.

I may be missing the point, but I thought this was what the Report button was for. If you spot a post which you believe violates the TOS hit the Report button, and briefly explain why you think it has. That is all that is required. Any direct interaction with the poster is likely to drag the thread off-topic.

The above text may sound curt, I don't mean it to be. As I say, I may have missed the point. Basic upshot: if you spot a violation that has not been dealt with please use the Report button, and do not start a flame war.

Synthetic Soul has it exactly. ToS violators are like trolls. Don't feed them. Report them. The "Report" button is an underutilized but handy way to open a private dialog to the moderation staff.

Filing reports is much much more effective than anything else. The response time for reports is just a few minutes, most of the time.

It's implied by a couple of the existing TOS, but perhaps a new rule: "Enforcement of the TOS is for the staff. Do not attempt self-enforcement by flaming."

That's a bad rule. I've seen users ToS8 people before, and I find it useful, as ToS8 is a more complicated rule to follow.

In short, everything's fine by us mods.

Duly noted. On the topic of #8 (and as far as ABX tests go) would a simplified test script be a useful addition? I'd be happy to help write one.

I completely agree with this as it concerns TOS8. For most other situations I think the report button is what should be used so that the conversation does not derail. Of course conversations can derail over TOS8 as well but it can usually be handled by a mod or admin posting something in either green or red instructing people to cease and desist or else.

I vote for the current system, it's working fine (from my POV).

I remember back when I was slapped with warnings and even a small suspension (oh the shame ), the forum software didn't allow me to even log out when I logged in after I was suspended. This of course meant that I couldn't read ANY topics whatsoever and only clearing out the cookie manually rectified this. Pretty dumb if you ask me. Dunno how it is working with this new forum version.

@MODS: If you "enforce mod preview", please write a note of that to the user. I was rather puzzled after my suspension when none of my posts appeared. I had no idea that my posts were suddenly pre-moderated.

It's still like that. Even more stupid is that you can't see (you don't even get an e-mail) why you've been suspended!

I almost wrote about that too but I couldn't remember if I got an email or not about the suspension. Can't you see the reason after you log in while suspended? I don't remember that either. If not, an email notification would be nice.. or the board could show the info.

EDIT: oh my, just realized that this is (probably) OT.. am I violating TOS in a "TOS Violators - How Should We Respond" topic?!

Nope. Personally I see that as a serious bug/inconvenience that should not exist in commercial software like IPB. Also why should I delete my cookies just to at least be able to read the debate?

You're admitting to being suspended in a constructively-critical way. I doubt anyone's going to call you to task on that.

Also your comments about suspension are noted. That does seem like a strange inconvenience, though I can imagine a case where it'd be intentional!

I think it's good if even long time users with high post admit they got warned or suspended before, because it proves those are not some fatal ordeal but very common thing here on HA and any new members shouldn't have a feeling that only they are treated exceptionally badly.

@Yirkha

Yes , that's a problem here.

For the record, there's also an old thread , of someone "frightened" by the big number of bans:
Lots of Banned Users, It makes me feel a little nervous...

If that were such an issue then I would suspect that such a thread would not have essentially died after less than 30 hours some three and a half years ago. Perhaps you can dig up some other discussions as this one falls well short of supporting your idea that this is actually a problem.

AFAIC, if new members can't seem to figure out how to avoid additional warnings they shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussion.

I follow several boards covering a broad range of interests. I have yet to find a better moderated board than HA. You usually get either under-moderation, causing endless and tiring flame wars, or over-moderation, where some jackass mods consider their own purpose as exercise of their personal princedom. If you take into account that HA mods are also just human beings, there is really not much left to wish for in my opinion.

Of course there are a lot of bans. Subjectivist nonsense is not welcome here.

In any internet community of any real size, there are always going to be people who don't feel like (or aren't capable of) playing nicely with others. My experience is that problems with that only really arise if (a) those people aren't dealt with in a responsible fashion or (b) those people are actually in charge of the place, and neither seems to be the case here. Not that I haven't seen moderation here sometimes that's seemed a little (or a lot) heavy-handed, but I'll take heavy-handed moderation and generally civil and interesting conversation (as we have here) over utter chaos with one or two frothing malcontents dominating everything (as I've seen more than one place devolve into) any day.

I don't really have a stake in the whole Grim Present Where There Is Only War Between Subjectivist Audiophiles and Scientifically-Minded Folks What Also Like To Listen To Music. I'm only here because of foobar2000, and because some of the technical discussions are interesting (though I will admit I don't understand that much of the very technical stuff!) But since you guys make it quite clear from the outset that there are certain lines of discussion -- specifically, unscientific assessments of audio quality -- that you'd rather not entertain, it seems to me that someone who comes in making wild claims about their $10,000 cables (or for that matter, someone who makes unsupported claims about how all differences between two sets of equipment or file formats are all in your head, you idiot) hardly has a right to be surprised when they're challenged on it. And there does seem to be a genuine effort to give people some benefit of the doubt before labeling them trolls and consigning them to outer darkness where there is only wailing and gnashing of magnetized vinyl teeth.

(I do cringe a bit every time someone here calls themselves an objectivist, though.)

Easy solution: Check your Ayn Rand books at the door. :B

I just wanted to add, that some topics are more likely to induce some TOS violations from participant
than others.

Let me bet, that it will be the case with this new thread:
Fantasy Audiophiles vs. Objective Audiophiles: Has the hobby changed?

Well, although it's not much of an issue now, I've had more than one person try to call TOS #8 on me publically in a thread when mentioning some conventional understanding. It has been used here and there in an attempt at intimidation and/or discounting.

The moderators, however, don't do this, and don't seem to be very easy (if at all) to be dragged down this road.

Reporting commercial / website spam is working reasonably well, but surely a delay of a few hours between registration and first post would deter these parasites?

.... or alternatively make all newly registered users automatically have moderator review of posts set to on until the new member proves themselves to be a real member rather than a spammer.

I second the review idea. Over at the doom9 forums, they have a week delay until you can post your first message, which is really annoying.

IIRC, Rockbox forums dump your first post into a spam folder. You're told explicitly your first post is going there, yet it still catches an awful amount of automated spam.

I would simply like to see consistency. I realise that moderators are all individuals so, what "offends" one may not bother another but what concerns me more is that established members seem to be treated far more leniently than newcomers. This is especially true in the case of TOS 2 in my opinion, and to a lesser extent TOS 8.

I think TOS 8 has a glaring "let out clause" that should be closed :

"All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims." (my italics)

So, I can claim almost anything and back it up with completely inadequate data as long as that's the best I can do.

TOS 9 also needs a rethink. In the UK and many other countries, I believe, it is a breach of copyright to make a copy of copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Yet a large part of the forum actively encourages and supports this illegal activity. I'm sure most of us don't feel that we're doing anything wrong and not suggesting that it should be discouraged but this topic is about how to deal with TOS violators. When The TOS themselves are ambiguous or inconsistent - let alone the enforcement - it undermines them I feel

See inconsistency? Report. If us mods agree with your rationale, we'll do something. My trouble is that I can only think like me, so all my moderation is based on the way I think. Help expand my view points! Report inconsistency! Or if you've got a lot of text to dump, just PM me. Having someone spoonfeed me with analyses of how the dynamics of a thread are playing out makes it far faster for me to go through and see if their complaint has any merit. This holds true especially in some of the lengthy technical debates that go on here.

TOS2 fills that hole nicely. Legalism sucks. Leniency is necessary. We are human. We mess up.

May I ask whether each moderator is allowed to punish offences against the HA TOS (especially deleting SPAM and to ban Spammers)?

I have some good reasons to be interested in that.

What kind of reasons specifically?

Answered via PM.

Robertina.